ARTICLE REPRINT
Design Management Journal
Building and tending bridges: Rethinking how consultants support change Tom Mulhern, Principal, Conifer Research Dave Lathrop, Manager, User and Field Research, Steelcase, Inc.
Reprint #03143MUL27 This article was first published in Design Management Journal Vol. 14 No. 3 The New Profile of Design Management Consulting Copyright © Summer 2003 by the Design Management Institute . All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To place an order or receive photocopy permission, contact DMI via phone at (617) 338-6380, Fax (617) 338-6570, or E-mail:
[email protected]. The Design Management Institute, DMI, and the design mark are service marks of the Design Management Institute. SM
www.dmi.org
CASE STUDY
Building and Information tending bridges: Activities Rethinking how Spaces People consultants support change Events by Tom Mulhern and Dave Lathrop
Process
or Steelcase, the relationship with Conifer Research is not so much about products as it is about methodologies—ways of bringing together and exploring existing resources to generate new understanding and insights. It’s a collaboration that produces what Tom Mulhern and David Lathrop call “experience bridges”—paths that reveal untapped creativity and innovation.
F
Tom Mulhern, Principal, Conifer Research
Dave Lathrop, Manager of User and Field Research, Steelcase Inc.
We were first flung together as client and consultant in late 2001. We had worked around each other and knew a lot of the same people, but we had never worked together. Our mission: Partner with Steelcase customers to radically boost the value they get from our knowledge of how furniture and workspace design affect the productive capacity, organizational effectiveness, and job satisfaction of workplace end-users.1 Our goal has been both to differentiate the value Steelcase brings, and to use the knowledge we gain over time to innovate product and service offerings. The challenge: Do this in a very resource-constrained environment with a fluid mix of internal and external resources, including customers, dealers,
designers, researchers, and external consultants. The results so far: Eighteen months down the road, the end-user perspective on the workplace is rapidly moving 1. We use the terms end user and end-user research. What we mean by these terms is a mix of classical ergonomics, social and cultural research (that is, ethnography), and scenario design, all focused on finding out the needs and desires of the people who use workspaces and furniture on an everyday basis. This is different from market research, by which we mean the effort to understand the needs of Steelcase’s economic buyers—facility managers and purchasing directors. We might have used instead the term applied ethnography, which is Conifer’s stated focus, but end-user research is truer to the specific mission we are pursuing at Steelcase.
Design Management Journal Summer 2003
27
The New Profile of Design Management Consulting
from the edges into the mainstream of Steelcase culture and work practice. End-user knowledge is having a dramatic impact on product development, sales, and internal perspective. Along the way, we have uncovered and have begun to apply some tricks we think are worth sharing with those who, like us, labor in the trenches of design, innovation, and change. These tricks should be of special interest to initiatives that blend external consultants, corporate staff, and teams from operating units. Background For more than 20 years, Steelcase has actively focused on understanding the physical, cognitive, social, and cultural context in which its products are used. So, for Steelcase’s industrial design and R&D groups, putting the end user first was not new. What was new was putting the user at the official center of the corporate strategy. Steelcase’s CEO, Jim Hackett, had challenged the enterprise to focus its energy on transforming the end user’s experience at work. All projects would now be assessed not only on their financial impact and relevance to Steelcase’s economic buyers (facility and procurement managers), but also on the value they create for the employee in the workplace. Dave and his colleague, Jack Tanis, engaged Conifer Research (Tom and partners Anne Schorr and Ben Jacobson), seasoned practitioners of end-user research, to help the organization rise to this challenge.
The end-user perspective had often been brought to Steelcase by a host of brilliant, innovative, but generally outside resources, with the outcome generally packaged as a “deliverable”
Our goal: Bring the outside in To this point, the end-user perspective had often been brought to Steelcase by a host of brilliant, innovative, but generally outside resources, with the outcome generally packaged as a “deliverable.” We saw that if we were to achieve the impact we sought, we as consultants (Dave, internal; Tom, external) would have to inspire
28
Design Management Journal Summer 2003
insiders to take up the cause, while preserving the rigor and science the prior mix of internal R&D and external specialists had brought to the table. Some fast failures: Identifying the gaps to close We identified three key “insider” groups at Steelcase, whose engagement with end-user knowledge would be critical: product development, product marketing, and field sales. The question was, how could we engage most successfully with these groups? The first and obvious option was what Dave came to call the “knowledge pill.” We were often asked, and agreed on a few occasions, to package up “everything we know about end users” and present it. This proved less than effective. For instance, a collection of “Patterns of User Behavior” delivered at a leadership meeting successfully stirred the pot, but ultimately provoked far more questions than answers. When end-user knowledge was reduced to “big ideas” or “headlines,” it often lost the visual, experiential richness that gave it value and authority in the first place. Similarly, attempts to incorporate user insight into exciting scenarios and prototypes were sometimes greeted with interest; but they were often perceived to be “design-speak,” or too conceptual and lacking in real-world product development constraints. These attempts sparked critique and controversy more often than action. The “knowledge pill” was doing little to bring the reality of the user’s voice into practice. Another way to engage was via an active learning program designed to help internal groups better grasp the potential value of enduser insight. This, too, we tried, launching a series of familiarization workshops at Steelcase University in Grand Rapids. In these workshops, teams of architects, designers, product managers, and executives got a taste of what it was like to approach the workplace as social scientists. They observed and learned from patterns in real work settings. We had introduced the methodology and inspired people with the potential, but we still had not created the sustainable impact we sought. Still, the workshops pointed a way forward. A model emerges: Experience bridges The big advantage the workshops had over the “knowledge pill” was that they were experiences. No surprise—doing something had a much
Building and tending bridges: Rethinking how consultants support change
deeper effect than simply hearing about something. Participants left fired up, creatively inspired, and personally changed. This reinforced our conviction that any effective approach would involve liberal doses of experiential learning and storytelling. Through experiences, we sensed, we could bridge people to knowledge and to one another. And if we made the experiences powerful and businessrelevant enough, the bridges could become permanent. Two early workshops were especially relevant. They led to what we now see as three types of experience bridges that can accelerate change and innovation (in this case, the diffusion of usercentered processes and philosophy into Steelcase and out to the facilities marketplace). In one workshop, we engaged a team from Steelcase Wood, the division then most responsible for Steelcase’s offerings to the higherend private-office market. This team saw that user-centered techniques were well-matched to their mission: inventing products that challenged existing ideas about private spaces. The resulting project taught us a lot about two kinds of bridges.
Tips for Activity Bridges • Choose a specific activity. “Document private offices” is much more useful than “learning” or “brainstorming.” • Assemble a diverse group. The difference between building an activity bridge and just doing the activity is that the bridge seeks to create shared experience and team alignment. Space Bridges: Bridging information to process But not every key member of the Wood team who could benefit could spare the time to go to the customer facilities. To extend the awareness and enrich the synthesis, we created a “fishing camp” at the division’s headquarters in Grand Rapids (figure 2). In this camp (actually a big room full of foam boards and video monitors), everyone from product designers to finance and operations leaders watched video footage of end users, discussed images, and searched for insights about the people who use and buy what they create. Over time, the space filled with annotations, printed images, and a host of secondary research Figure 1. A Steelcase team member observes an end user in a workspace.
Activity Bridges: Bridging people to information The Steelcase Wood team wanted to better understand the nature of private offices, which they believed were stuck in an old paradigm of status, hierarchy, and rank. But actually, most of the team had spent little time in customers’ private offices. Rather than doing the research and giving the team a summary, we engaged the team directly in the doing, building a very direct bridge between the people and the information. Team members went to three diverse customer sites and—guided by Conifer’s team of social scientists—talked with and observed executives, lawyers, software developers, and other owners of private spaces. The team took pictures, recorded video, and looked for insights. In the course of these activities, we began to build a shared picture of several opportunities for innovation. The pace at which we generated ideas was fast and furious. The team went from a general sense that something could be done differently to a visceral sense of how to do it, at the same time compiling evidence to communicate the opportunity better (figure 1).
Figure 2. The “fishing camp” links information to a team process.
Design Management Journal Summer 2003
29
The New Profile of Design Management Consulting
inspired by what we learned in the field. In a series of workshops held in the space, jointly led by the divisional design and marketing directors and facilitated by Dave and Conifer, the team synthesized what it was learning. Ultimately—three months after the first research trips—the room filled with full-scale prototypes of dramatically different private office solutions. For designers on the team, this sort of approach had always been the ideal, but time constraints and organizational boundaries often made it hard to realize. Deep and early integration by the whole team in synthesis and concept creation was the breakthrough. The nondesign participants took insights about user needs back into their functional responsibilities. The shared activities and visually persistent evidence, insights, and artifacts helped the entire team to get to shared answers. Not only that, but what they learned continues to influence business decisions.
Through experiences,
we sensed, we could bridge people to knowledge and to one another. And if we made the experiences powerful and businessrelevant enough, the bridges could become permanent
further coaxing, the sales team began to apply what they had learned directly in the field. This, in turn, led Dave and Jack Tanis to assemble a new team dedicated to user-centered consultative selling. This team, Applied Research Consulting, was formally launched in late 2002, and our experiences with it were to teach us about event bridges. The traditional role of the consultant is to bring new information, people, and processes to the client. But we learned we got results faster when we focused on doing things to bridge existing information, people, and processes. In the course of bridging, we did a great deal of bringing, too—specialized processes and tools for end-user research, people who have unique research and interpretative skills, and of course, new insights about end users in the workplace. But the shift in emphasis was key: We were to be bridgers, not just bringers (figure 3). Event Bridges: Bridging people to process In the context of field sales, the bridging challenge is slightly different. Salespeople who work in the field need to make research about enduser needs powerfully relevant to facility management customers, who are often pushed to make space decisions predominantly on cost. We need to help our customers and sales team bridge to one another and to new information. And we need to create a context in which it is possible to resolve the trade-offs between the very real efficiency constraints and the
Tips for Space Bridges • Secure the “fishing camp” for the project’s duration, not just during team workshops and brainstorming sessions. Leave the layers of work up over time, so that the space becomes a view into the collective brain of the project. • Instrument the room for change: computers, writeable surfaces, plenty of sticky notes, foam boards, tape, and so on. Create a toolrich environment that begs people to engage. Let it be messy. Another kind of bridge We developed the second workshop for seasoned field-sales executives. This group directly experienced the frame shift that end-user research could produce and immediately recognized the potential value for Steelcase customers. Without
30
Design Management Journal Summer 2003
A new role for consulting... Beyond...
To...
Consultant as Bringer
Consultant as Bridger Information
Information
Activities People
People
Spaces
Events Process Figure 3. A new role for consultants: bridgers, not bringers.
Process
Building and tending bridges: Rethinking how consultants support change
effectiveness opportunities created when we come to understand end-user behavior. Based on some early successes and process prototyping done by Dave’s Steelcase colleague, Bruce Simoneaux, we have converged on the use of two- to five-day events. These events combine research and other activities and a shared space to help a team rapidly invent holistically integrated solutions. Participants in these events typically include facility managers, outside design resources, end users, and line managers. In fact, the participant list can help deliver one of the unique benefits of this approach: Participants “own” the outcome and tend to apply and advocate for it quickly. In one recent project with a large, multinational company, the company’s global facilities planner brought us together with her local counterparts, in addition to the local design and real-estate resources and Chicago-based design firm, Archideas (figure 4). This mix permitted us to take the project from density-driven fit plans to three innovative floor plans and typical work settings—driven by user participation and workprocess insights. The options were then wrapped in a financial analysis to gauge feasibility. The blend of customer participation, user-centeredness, creative co-design, and a shared project space was key to success.
ences can have powerful impact—arguably an order of magnitude more powerful than the oldmodel consulting project that culminates in a report. Over time, we have learned that “proof” and “belief” play very different roles in a group’s process. Proof comes from assembled facts, but is often insufficient to cause people to act. Belief, by contrast, tends to come from consistent and congruent experiences. And it is belief, not proof, that is the necessary pre-condition for action—even in the most “fact-based” organizations (figure 5). So what’s truly new here? One answer: nothing. Steelcase was already getting information about patterns of end-user needs and behavior. Steelcase already had assembled cross-functional teams of talented, motivated people. Products were in the pipeline, the factory, and in use in customer buildings. Another answer: lots. A common problem
Tips for Event Bridges • Give the group a clear, tangible, and achievable task, and keep the time pressure on. • Immerse three key participant groups— design (internal and external), actual end users, and line managers whose business depends on the outcome—in a deeply experiential manner. Everyone must participate—no observers. • Tightly script events as a set of focused work sessions, organized enough to provide nondesigners with the comfort that they are being set up for success, but still flexible enough to adapt to new ideas. Avoid at any cost the perception that these are “meetings.” Summary: What experience bridges accomplish These three types of experience bridges link people, information, and process. In so doing, they dramatically accelerate a team’s progress toward alignment and action. Even very simple experi-
Figure 4. The participation of end users makes it possible to apply research insights to create better design.
Facts
exist! does not This path
A ction
Belief Proof Experiences Figure 5. The path to action.
Design Management Journal Summer 2003
31
The New Profile of Design Management Consulting
was that development teams often lack shared understanding, even though they have plenty of shared information. Trapped in binders or in individual beliefs about “user needs,” ideas and assumptions are often undebated, under-utilized, and not reality-checked. Crossed wires and misunderstandings become inevitable. Today, we are working to create common templates for these experiences—a playbook the entire organization can use to become comfortable putting the end user first. These templates would have been impossible without the past 18 months of our own experiential learning. We are also extending experience bridges by gradually building relationships with Steelcase customers with similar interests. The emerging Steelcase Workplace Research Network is a group of companies interested in using space creatively to leverage their people’s efficiency and effectiveness. Finally, there is the change in consultantclient interaction that underlies all of the above.
When budgets get tight
and accountability is in the air, a bridgebuilding consultant has to stick around through the scary fits-and-starts of change, building small bridges when that’s all that can be managed
Implications for consultants and clients If you are not already working in this way, it is likely you see a number of substantive barriers to doing so. Those barriers are real, and there’s no easy way around them. But pretty major changes can come from a series of relatively minor shifts in the historical roles of both consultant and client. Consultants who want to build and tend bridges have to trade off some of the benefits of the status quo. Clients also will have to venture into some new territory. What consultants may have to give up to work this way The “master of the universe” self-concept. Bridge-building is a somewhat more modest conception of the consulting role. As catalysts for internal action and ownership, it is not in
32
Design Management Journal Summer 2003
our interest to pursue the conventionalconsulting ideal of super-smart people with super-smart ideas who define the fixes for everything. This approach is more about causing substantive change than simply diagnosing the need for it. For Conifer, this was a welcome burden to shed in exchange for the opportunity to have true connection and impact. For others, it might be tougher. The luxury of the retainer. While bridge-building can be a pretty steady gig, it is not the stuff of massive retainers. Its logic is, in fact, just the opposite. Instead of fostering long-term dependency, the consultant’s role is to help build specific internal muscles. This contribution is best measured out in targeted projects with high levels of accountability. The security of specified deliverables. It’s easier to staff and plan around reports and recommendations. But when you’re delivering bridges, you never know when one’s going to be needed, or precisely what it needs to connect and how to design it. The convenience of being an outsider. When budgets get tight and accountability is in the air, a bridge-building consultant has to stick around through the scary fits-and-starts of change, building small bridges when that’s all that can be managed. Otherwise, there will be no credibility left to build the next set of bridges. What clients may have to give up to work this way The predictability of the project plan. We feel we accomplished more by not pushing too hard for too much structure too soon. We invested in building a flexible methodology rather than an overly structured process. Though we were constantly executing, we intentionally morphed our approach, partners, and scope. The security of deliverables. While plenty of mutually agreed-upon deliverables emerged over time, Steelcase does not hold Conifer to a contract that specifies outputs in advance. Instead, we both hold our feet to the fire of inducing user-centered innovation. The work produced outputs, but it was about growing shared, experiential understanding and a new
Building and tending bridges: Rethinking how consultants support change
methodology. Deliverables, while perhaps safer, are not very satisfying locked away in secure filing cabinets. The convenience of insider status. Steelcase sought above all to build trust and engage Conifer’s complete capability and passion. We avoided the classic procurement-driven vendormanagement techniques. Instead, we tried to set up situations where enlightened self-interest would create substantial wins for the customer, client, and consultant. Reprint # 03143MUL27 Find related articles on www.dmi.org with these keywords: consulting, organizational change, research methods, rapid prototyping, teams
Suggested readings Sanders, Elizabeth B. N. “Postdesign and Participatory Culture.” In Useful and Critical: The Position of Research in Design. September 911, 1999; Tuusula, Finland. University of Art and Design Helsinki (UIAH). This article, along with many others by Dr. Sanders and her colleagues, is available at the Sonic Rim Web site, www.sonicrim.com. Vehar, Jonathan, and Bob Eckert. More Lightning, Less Thunder. Santa Monica: New & Improved, 2000. This is a great resource for understanding how to build successful team experiences.
An appreciation In closing, it’s imperative that we acknowledge a few colleagues and team members among many who shaped and inspired (but bear no blame for) these thoughts. Thanks to (at Steelcase) Jack Tanis, Bruce Simoneaux, Martha Rey, Craig Wilson, Mary Underwood, Jan Carlson, Kirt Martin, Frank Graziano, Mark Baloga, Ren Tubergen, Noe Palacios, Paul Allie, and Tim Stern; and (in the consulting world) Anne Schorr, Ben Jacobson, Adisorn Supawatanakul, and Jennifer Joos at Conifer; Michael Fazio and Staci Schuette at Archideas; and Chris Domina and John Ravitch at IDEO, San Francisco.
Design Management Journal Summer 2003
33
